Anonymous wrote:Is this true when you factor in federal workers’ lifetime benefits and pensions (even the reduced amount from what it used to be)? Contractors don’t get pensions or retirement t health plans?

My office is not in the budget. We are pure fee-for-service. So I have visibility into the fully burdened costs for civil service folks. Some of our cost might be agency-specific, for example bldg maintenance and utilities, but that bit will be tiny compared with the other costs.

There are 2 very different Federal retirement systems. People hired before (roughly) 1984 are on the older CSRS retirement. People hired after the cutoff date are on FERS instead.

CSRS has the full pension and gold-plated benefits many people think of. CSRS fully burdened costs are visibly higher than FERS and are more similar to contractors who have employer benefits.

FERS is mostly a clone of the 401(k) / 403(b) retirement savings schemes used today by commercial and non-profits. The 401(k) piece of FERS is called TSP. It has the same contribution limits as 401(k). Federal matching is Ok, but not as good as several commercial firms I know about. FERS retirees do not get free health insurance after retirement. There is a very very small pension component in FERS. Fully burdened costs for a FERS employee usually are visibly lower than contractors and always are visibly lower than CSRS employees with identical salary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think any position is safe. We're not dealing with people sincerely interested in improving government ops or efficiency. They want to burn it down.

They want to send the contracts to their friends and family. Remember that contractors cost the gov a lot more than feds. This isn’t a cost savings measure.

Contractors do not cost a lot more. The fully burdened cost is similar but there more flexibility on how to use or remove a contractor. And the gov can enforce performance better.

If you think it's easier to enforce performance, you've never dealt with a government contract.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think any position is safe. We're not dealing with people sincerely interested in improving government ops or efficiency. They want to burn it down.

They want to send the contracts to their friends and family. Remember that contractors cost the gov a lot more than feds. This isn’t a cost savings measure.

Contractors do not cost a lot more. The fully burdened cost is similar but there more flexibility on how to use or remove a contractor. And the gov can enforce performance better.

They do cost a lot more. We played this game under Clinton. Know your history.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think any position is safe. We're not dealing with people sincerely interested in improving government ops or efficiency. They want to burn it down.

They want to send the contracts to their friends and family. Remember that contractors cost the gov a lot more than feds. This isn’t a cost savings measure.

Contractors do not cost a lot more. The fully burdened cost is similar but there more flexibility on how to use or remove a contractor. And the gov can enforce performance better.

Contractors who are employees of the contracting company usually are more expensive, but yes they are more flexible and it is easier to enforce performance.

Contracting companies vary, but typically charge 90%-100% of the salary as "overhead" (including the fee/profit/etc)

By contrast, individual subcontractors often are cheaper than civil service, because the contracting company markup is typically 8-10% and the subcontractor gets no fringe benefits. They also provide flexibility and easier performance management.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawyer at commerce that deals with tariff issues seems pretty safe right now.

True, but conversion to Schedule F seems likely.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think any position is safe. We're not dealing with people sincerely interested in improving government ops or efficiency. They want to burn it down.

They want to send the contracts to their friends and family. Remember that contractors cost the gov a lot more than feds. This isn’t a cost savings measure.

Is this true when you factor in federal workers’ lifetime benefits and pensions (even the reduced amount from what it used to be)? Contractors don’t get pensions or retirement t health plans?

Not when you factor in the fact that you aren't just paying for a single contractor salary. You have to pay enough for the contractor company to profit and pay their own admin staff to support the contractor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think any position is safe. We're not dealing with people sincerely interested in improving government ops or efficiency. They want to burn it down.

They want to send the contracts to their friends and family. Remember that contractors cost the gov a lot more than feds. This isn’t a cost savings measure.

Is this true when you factor in federal workers’ lifetime benefits and pensions (even the reduced amount from what it used to be)? Contractors don’t get pensions or retirement t health plans?

No, we don’t. Despite doing most of the actual work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think any position is safe. We're not dealing with people sincerely interested in improving government ops or efficiency. They want to burn it down.

They want to send the contracts to their friends and family. Remember that contractors cost the gov a lot more than feds. This isn’t a cost savings measure.

Is this true when you factor in federal workers’ lifetime benefits and pensions (even the reduced amount from what it used to be)? Contractors don’t get pensions or retirement t health plans?

Anonymous wrote:Lawyer at commerce that deals with tariff issues seems pretty safe right now.

True, but conversion to Schedule F seems likely.

Lawyer at commerce that deals with tariff issues seems pretty safe right now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think any position is safe. We're not dealing with people sincerely interested in improving government ops or efficiency. They want to burn it down.

They want to send the contracts to their friends and family. Remember that contractors cost the gov a lot more than feds. This isn’t a cost savings measure.

Contractors do not cost a lot more. The fully burdened cost is similar but there more flexibility on how to use or remove a contractor. And the gov can enforce performance better.

Panda care?

Anonymous wrote:I don't know of any safe jobs aside from legislative branch.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New Washington Post article - the goal is to replace the human workforce with machines

https://wapo.st/3WRYJOQ

But long term, how does that pan out? The majority of people will be unemployed and have nothing?

The next phase is Universal Basic Income, by which Musk and Thiel decide how much each unemployed peon deserves to receive. More money for each additional white Christian baby. Welcome to Hitler's America!

Not either of the PP, but even though this sounds outlandish -- it is really what the end result of automation looks like (coming from someone who has taught Econ 101). People are divided even more extremely than they are now into the class of haves (owners and stakeholders of AI/automation) and have nots (people without employment/people who's productivity is too low to be in the labor force). Then it is decided how much to compensate the lower class so that society is relatively stable. In addition to how much to compensate (universal basic income), the other important question is who decides this question. These days looks like it's more likely to be a small class of multi billionaire.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think any position is safe. We're not dealing with people sincerely interested in improving government ops or efficiency. They want to burn it down.

They want to send the contracts to their friends and family. Remember that contractors cost the gov a lot more than feds. This isn’t a cost savings measure.